TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Income-tax Act, 1961 except difference in figure amount of penalty imposed, facts are identical in these appeals. 3. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2002-03 on 30/10/2002; for Assessment Year 2003-04 on 30/10/2003 and for Assessment Year 2004-05 on 09/10/2004. In the returns of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB in respect of export incentives in the form of DEPB and duty draw back. The Assessing Officer, however, while completing assessment u/s 143(3) disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of export incentives relying on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sterling Foods 237 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives. However, the Assessing Officer relying on decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT 207 CTR 243 and other decisions held that deduction u/s 80IB was not available in respect of duty draw back and DEPB. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) was imposable as the assessee had claimed wrong deduction thereby furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. 5. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made detailed submissions wherein it was submitted that on similar facts and circumstances, ITAT in many cases of CIT(A) Karnal Range itself has deleted the penalty. Ld. CIT(A) after going through various decisions of various High Courts and ITAT Delhi Benches, deleted the penalty by observing as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f M/s Oriental Rug Company v. ACIT in ITA Nos. 3629 and 3630/Del/2008 for Assessment Years 2001-02 and 2002-03 ITAT Delhi Bench C dated 02/4/2009 submitted that penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) could not be imposed in respect of additions made disallowing claim of deduction in respect of DEPB and duty draw back. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. ITAT Delhi Bench C in the case of M/s Oriental Rug Company (supra) deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance made u/s 80IB in respect of DEPB and duty draw back by observing as under: 8. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the records carefully. There is no dispute on facts that assessee have d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of CIT Vs. Budh Well Cooperative Sugar Mills (supra) has held that if an assessee has made a bona fide claim on the basis of law laid down by various Hon ble High Courts then penalty would not be levied upon such an assessee merely on the ground that his claim was disallowed. Similarly, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harshvardhan (supra) has held that if as assessee claims some deductions which are debatable then it could not be said that assessee has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income which exposed him with the penalty proceedings under Sec.271(1)(c ) of the Act. Similarly, Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tek Ram (supra) has considered this issue. In thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
